Please see this: https://github.com/robtweed/global_storage/blob/master/Performance.md#basic-global-set-write-performance-testleast not to the extent that they'll look beyond the usual culprits?
Read the full blog for context: https://github.com/robtweed/global_storage
Note that performance using raw M code will be even faster: 1 million key/value pair sets per second should be obtainable from YottaDB on even relatively modest hardware.
A key conclusion of the blog article is that such performance significantly exceeds even the more well-known embedded databases that are designed and considered to be ultra-fast
Whether anyone in the mainstream of IT knows or cares about this is more difficult to assess. I've seen passing interest so far, but that's about as far as it goes. I guess most people don't worry about the performance of the databases they use, at
Still, we can only try to wake them up.
Rob
On Monday, July 19, 2021 at 6:45:18 AM UTC-4, rtweed wrote:least not to the extent that they'll look beyond the usual culprits?
Please see this: https://github.com/robtweed/global_storage/blob/master/Performance.md#basic-global-set-write-performance-test
Read the full blog for context: https://github.com/robtweed/global_storage
Note that performance using raw M code will be even faster: 1 million key/value pair sets per second should be obtainable from YottaDB on even relatively modest hardware.
A key conclusion of the blog article is that such performance significantly exceeds even the more well-known embedded databases that are designed and considered to be ultra-fast
Whether anyone in the mainstream of IT knows or cares about this is more difficult to assess. I've seen passing interest so far, but that's about as far as it goes. I guess most people don't worry about the performance of the databases they use, at
Still, we can only try to wake them up.
RobThis is a valuable write-up. Thanks for making it!
Kevin
That's a wee bit fast, Bhaskar!! :-) Are you going to publish some of those figures anywhere? They pretty much blow any of the "mainstream" databases clean out of the water.
Rob
On Friday, July 23, 2021 at 10:40:14 AM UTC-4, rtweed wrote:like to find a nice key-value NoSQL benchmark, and make that run on YottaDB.
That's a wee bit fast, Bhaskar!! :-) Are you going to publish some of those figures anywhere? They pretty much blow any of the "mainstream" databases clean out of the water.
RobThanks Rob. I too was pleasantly surprised by the numbers, especially on the Raspberry Pi Zero. I would like to publish benchmarks somewhere, but this is not a realistic benchmark, and one that does not lend itself to apples-to-apples comparisons. I'd
In any case, suggestions welcome. I did Tweet them.
Regards
– Bhaskar
Pada Jumat, 23 Juli 2021 pukul 22.28.27 UTC+7, K.S. Bhaskar menulis:d like to find a nice key-value NoSQL benchmark, and make that run on YottaDB.
On Friday, July 23, 2021 at 10:40:14 AM UTC-4, rtweed wrote:
That's a wee bit fast, Bhaskar!! :-) Are you going to publish some of those figures anywhere? They pretty much blow any of the "mainstream" databases clean out of the water.
RobThanks Rob. I too was pleasantly surprised by the numbers, especially on the Raspberry Pi Zero. I would like to publish benchmarks somewhere, but this is not a realistic benchmark, and one that does not lend itself to apples-to-apples comparisons. I'
In any case, suggestions welcome. I did Tweet them.
Regards
– Bhaskar
Bhaskar,I'd like to find a nice key-value NoSQL benchmark, and make that run on YottaDB.
These are very impressive numbers. I'd love to see them highlighted on Hackernews. I would post them, but I think to get traction, there would need to be a write-up. Here is another post I found of someone else jumping on the speed-test bandwagon.
https://blog.metaobject.com/2021/07/inserting-130m-sqlite-rows-per.html
I don't have the skill or forum to write up such an evaluation of yottadb. Any takers?
And again, Bhaksar, thanks for working on this. I love that a Raspberry pi holds it's own in terms of speed!
Kevin
On Friday, July 23, 2021 at 10:19:37 PM UTC-4, solo...@gmail.com wrote:
Pada Jumat, 23 Juli 2021 pukul 22.28.27 UTC+7, K.S. Bhaskar menulis:
On Friday, July 23, 2021 at 10:40:14 AM UTC-4, rtweed wrote:
That's a wee bit fast, Bhaskar!! :-) Are you going to publish some of those figures anywhere? They pretty much blow any of the "mainstream" databases clean out of the water.
RobThanks Rob. I too was pleasantly surprised by the numbers, especially on the Raspberry Pi Zero. I would like to publish benchmarks somewhere, but this is not a realistic benchmark, and one that does not lend itself to apples-to-apples comparisons.
In any case, suggestions welcome. I did Tweet them.
Regards
– Bhaskar
Since programming can be therapeutic, and I felt like therapy, I decided to play a little. See https://gitlab.com/ksbhaskar/fastinsert/-/blob/main/fastinsert.m
K.S. Bhaskar ezt írta (2021. július 22., csütörtök, 23:33:33 UTC+2):
Since programming can be therapeutic, and I felt like therapy, I decided to play a little. See https://gitlab.com/ksbhaskar/fastinsert/-/blob/main/fastinsert.m
Hi,
The linked M routine does not run processes in parallel:
for i=1:1:nproc do setdata(i)
The time reported is for the last setdata() call only, so increasing
the number of processes decreases the reported elapsed time.
The corrected code:
set start=$zut,end=0
for i=1:1:nproc do
. set:^ctrl(i,"start")<start start=^ctrl(i,"start")
. set:end<^ctrl(i,"end") end=^ctrl(i,"end")
Regards,
pahihu
On Wednesday, July 28, 2021 at 6:59:39 AM UTC-4, pahihu wrote:
K.S. Bhaskar ezt írta (2021. július 22., csütörtök, 23:33:33 UTC+2):
Since programming can be therapeutic, and I felt like therapy, I decided to play a little. See https://gitlab.com/ksbhaskar/fastinsert/-/blob/main/fastinsert.m
Hi,
The linked M routine does not run processes in parallel:
for i=1:1:nproc do setdata(i)
The time reported is for the last setdata() call only, so increasing
the number of processes decreases the reported elapsed time.
The corrected code:
set start=$zut,end=0
for i=1:1:nproc do
. set:^ctrl(i,"start")<start start=^ctrl(i,"start")
. set:end<^ctrl(i,"end") end=^ctrl(i,"end")
Regards,Pahihu –
pahihu
Thanks for the correction. You are right. Although the “starter's pistol” of the M lock release means that all child processes start at essentially the same time, and that in typical cases, the difference is likely to be in the millisecond range.
I will fix it in the next iteration. Thanks again.
Regards
– Bhaskar
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 399 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 101:33:31 |
Calls: | 8,363 |
Calls today: | 2 |
Files: | 13,165 |
Messages: | 5,897,912 |